DMs, Please Stop Arbitrarily Limiting Race Choice in Your Games

There is a particular refrain that I keep hearing on the forums from dungeon masters. While the specifics vary from person to person, and game to game, they all sound something like this:

"Why do my players want to play all the weird, unusual, or exotic races in my game? Why does no one want to just play the races in the core book?"

What's wrong with humans and half-orcs, huh?

Since this seems to be such a common complaint, I'm going to do my best to address it. But before we get going, I'm going to assume that you're playing in a setting where the races your players want actually exist, and if they don't exist in the setting that you made it clear they aren't available in your pitch/Session 0.

Okay? Okay, let's get started.

The Shiny Blue Ball

Have you ever noticed that when a new game or supplement comes out that it's all people want to play for a while? Like how everyone lost their mind over the hybrid classes when Paizo released the Advanced Class Guide? A lot of the time you see the same thing with weird, unusual, or rare race options. Part of the appeal for them is they're new, they're different, or they've been restricted at other tables, or in other games. So players want to take them for a test drive, and see how they handle.

Androids are a base race now? Score!

Sometimes the shiny blue ball is just how new the race is, but sometimes there are other factors at play. Maybe it has racial advantages (the strix's flight, a dragonborn's breath weapon, etc.) that a player wants to build their character around. It's also possible that the race fits an archetype or idea the player has for the specific story they want to tell with their character.

And sure, sometimes it's just because a player wants to be different. Don't shame them for that, it's what they think is fun, and nine times out of ten it isn't hurting anyone.

It's also important to remember that the core races of your game (the humans, dwarves, halflings, etc.) may be less appealing to players for a list of other reasons. One is that they're common, so it's likely they've played several characters of these races before. Maybe they lack the mechanical advantages of the unusual race choice. And, speaking from experience, the core races are old standbys. Nothing wrong with them, just as there was nothing wrong with the base class list when all those hybrid classes came out. But sometimes you want to slip into something new, rather than just putting on the same hoodie you've worn for years now.

But It's My Game!

The most common reason I've seen DMs defend their decisions to limit races is the age-old, "My game, my rules." While that's technically true, it's important to remember that you're not a put-upon parent managing a bunch of kids. Everyone at the table is here to have fun, and to contribute to the story.

With that said, you are perfectly within your rights as the DM not to allow certain races, classes, or whatever you want in your game. But if you're going to say no, you should be able to provide a reason beyond, "Because I don't like the way you're having fun at my table." And if you're going to do it, as stated above, you need to make that clear and up-front in your pitch for the game, or in your Session 0 discussion. Because if a player agrees to those terms, then they've agreed to the game as you laid it out.

"I don't want to deal with that," is also not great, as far as reasons go.

Why do you have to explain yourself? Well, because we're all taking part in this story together, and if you're disagreeing with a player over a thematic or flavor thing, then you should really explain where you're coming from so you can both reach a mutual understanding. Because if the player's character doesn't actually break any rules, there's not much reason to deny them based purely on their race choice, class choice, or any of those other basic building blocks. Especially if their concept doesn't violate any of the terms you set forth as conditions for joining the game.

For example, there are some perfectly valid reasons to say no to a race choice. Some of those are:

- That race doesn't exist in this setting (particularly important for DMs making their own worlds to explain in Session 0, or when pitching their game).

- That race is not part of the core setting we're using (this comes up when players want to make their own races, or use third-party stats as a way to bring in stuff that doesn't already exist in your game).

- That race cannot survive in this location (this is a very rare example, but works if you have, say, a merfolk race that has to spend several hours a day immersed in water trying to join a game set in the middle of a desert. It should be noted, however, that if the player has a workaround for the limitation then you should consider allowing it).

The problem is that most of the time a conflict like this is not between a player's desire and the setting's limitations. It's between the game the player wants to be part of, and the DM's vision for the game they want to run. In this case, you need to take a breath, and see if you can meet in the middle somehow.

EDIT: Since there seems to be continuing confusion, I felt I needed to spell this out here. Arbitrary limitations are ones that have no basis in the setting, the story, or the rules. We are talking expressly about player races that exist in your setting, and which are open and available, but which a DM has chosen to deny anyway. We aren't talking about races that aren't in your world, or races that don't have stats in your world, or races who aren't allowed by the strictures and requirements of your story. Hopefully that clears things up.

The "Yes, But" Approach

Lots of DMs have likely heard that it's better to say, "yes, but," than to give their players a flat-out, "no." Why? Because it shows you're willing to work with them, and it tests their resolve regarding how badly they want/need a part of their character in order for it to work/interest them.

"Where does it say you can play a sentient bear?"

It's a perfectly valid thing for you to feel thrown off by unexpected or weird player requests. However, you should sit down with your players, and use the mystical phrase, "I have some concerns," in order to put the two of you on the same page.

For example, say you have a player who really wants to play a tiefling. Tieflings exist in your setting, but because they're seen as untrustworthy and dangerous in the area this game takes place, they're often met with a lot of hostility. Maybe they were the foot soldiers in a recent war, and so there's a lot of negative feelings and wounds that haven't healed yet. Whatever, point is that they're a big, weird character who may have a target painted between their horns. So you bring this issue up to the player, and ask how they plan to deal with those repercussions.

Maybe the player suggests giving this character more angelic features, allowing them to pretend to be an aasimar, or using magic to "pass" for another race to avoid suspicion. Maybe they take a background that makes them a folk hero (possibly for actions they took during said war), or you make the character a local so that there's more of a, "if you raise 'em right, they turn out just fine," sort of attitude (also useful for playing any traditionally "evil" race in a way that isn't really all that evil). Perhaps they're good friends with a local character, and that character vouches for them, deflecting a lot of (but perhaps not all) of the hostility directed their way.

Or maybe the player just nods, thanks you for the warning, but says that they are more than willing to deal with that as a consequence of playing their character the way they want to.

This is the part where, hard as it can sometimes be, you should take your foot off the brake and let your players do their thing. As long as their character does not violate any rules of the setting or the game (including the requirements you set forth in Session 0), and they aren't using this character's unique features to be disruptive, what's the harm in letting them have it?

Because I will say this much; giving someone a shiny toy is a sure-fire way to make them invested in your game right from the first session. Saying no, I don't want those in my game, however, is a great way to toss a bucket of sand onto your player's enthusiasm. And it may be a pain to deal with a goblin berserker or an aasimar wizard, but I guarantee it is nowhere near as difficult as trying to build that player's enthusiasm for your game back up.

Like, Follow, and Stay in Touch!

That's all for this week's Moon Pope Monday. Hopefully you found this suggestions useful!

For more of my work, check out my Vocal archive, and stop by the YouTube channel Dungeon Keeper Radio. Or if you'd prefer to read some of my books, like my sword and sorcery novel Crier's Knife or my latest short story collection The Rejects, then head over to My Amazon Author Page!

To stay on top of all my latest releases, follow me on Facebook, Tumblr, Twitter, and now Pinterest as well! To support my work, consider Buying Me a Ko-Fi, or heading to The Literary Mercenary's Patreon page to become a regular, monthly patron. That one helps ensure you get more Improved Initiative, and it means you'll get my regular, monthly giveaways as a bonus!

3 Reasons I Write So Much About Pathfinder

I've received a fair amount of feedback on this blog over the years. While some has been good, and some has been bad, I have also received a fairly steady stream of questions. Some readers want to know my opinions on a given rule, or whether I allow certain books when I'm running a game. However, one of the most common questions I tend to get is, "Why do you write about Pathfinder so much?"

Sometimes people ask me if I'm ever going to do character conversions for 5th edition DND, and sometimes they ask why I don't write more about games like Call of Cthulhu, Savage Worlds, or Fate, but the meat of the inquiry is always, "Why do you spend so much time on this one system?"

Well, if this is a question you've wondered about, or asked, here are three reasons for the favoritism Pathfinder tends to get round these parts.

Reason #1: It's My Game

As I said in my post Why Pathfinder is My Game of Choice, this is the RPG I play the most. At any given time I'm in between two and three Pathfinder campaigns, and when I run my own games it's the system I use. I've played and run Pathfinder at conventions, and it is the game I have the most system mastery of. Because of all that, it's also the game I tend to have the most ideas for, and the most opinions about.

Reason #2: Pathfinder Guides Are Actually Useful

I mentioned system mastery, but I want to underline its importance in my decision when it comes to content. Pathfinder is a rules-dense game, and when you take into account all of the third-party material that's been written for it, some players and DMs can feel like they're drowning in a sea of options.

That's where I come in.

Whether it's a character conversion, an unusual character concept, or just a crunch post, my intent is to mark a path for my readers to find their way toward a particular goal. Whether that's building a solid Captain America lookalike, dealing with spellcasters, or choosing great gear options, I cut down the amount of digging and browsing that has to be done, saving my readers time and energy.

Now, that isn't to say I couldn't write those same guides for 5th edition Dungeons and Dragons, but they aren't as necessary in a game that simply doesn't have the same amount of content to slog through. With 5th ed, players may only have a dozen options to choose from, and minimal customization (I believe in 5e barbarians only have two paths of advancement, and fighters have three?). With Pathfinder the sky may very well be the limit when it comes to what you can pull off, and there are dozens of books to dig through... so those are the players I throw a line to.

Reason #3: It's What All The Cool Kids Are Playing

Most folks who stop by my blog game for fun. Some of my readers do it occasionally, and some of them do it religiously, but a majority of my traffic comes from people for whom RPGs are a fun past time. They're a great way to spend an evening with friends, they're good for meeting new people, and they provide a unique opportunity to be creative.

Those are all the same reasons I play RPGs. However, I don't write about them just for fun. I'm here because this is my job. So when I sit down to choose a topic I don't just ask what would be fun for me to write about; I ask what's going to get people's attention. Pathfinder is one of the longer-running fantasy RPGs right now, it has a big fan base, and several dedicated outlets that I can count on a signal boost from. There's plenty of material that hasn't been covered (or at least hasn't been covered in a way I would talk about it), and there's new stuff coming out all the time.

So, it isn't that I don't love Changeling, Vampire, Call of Cthulhu, Paranoia, X-Crawl, and the dozens of other games I've tried and played over the years. It isn't that I don't have opinions on them, or suggestions for how to make them more fun. It's that when I write a post about a character build for Werewolf, or tell a story about a session I once ran for Grimm, I'll get 300-400 people checking it out, and then it will slink off to the corner, never to be read again. There are a few exceptions, but those exceptions tend to prove the rule.

If I write a post about Pathfinder, and it isn't popular, I'll still pull in 1,000-1,500 hits on it during its initial promotion, and people will stop in from time to time because they found it on a Google search. If I write a post for Pathfinder and it is popular, though? Then I'm looking at 10,000 hits during the first week or so, and a potential for it to explode in popularity again as the subject that caught so much attention comes to the forefront of game discussions once more.

If Spycraft, Shadowrun, or even 5th edition pulled in that sort of traffic for me, then I would be switching systems in a heartbeat. But, excluding my general fantasy RPG posts, I don't get the same attention when I focus on other systems.

So, if you were curious, now you know.

Oh, lastly, if you want more thoughts, guides, and content on Pathfinder, then you should check out the Creative Repository Blog by Simon Peter Munoz, and That Boomer Kid by the infamous Clinton Boomer. If you like my stuff, you'll love what they have to offer!

That's all for this week's Moon Pope Monday post! If you want even more content from me, check out my growing archive over on Vocal's Gamers site. It's small now, but it won't stay that way for long. If you want to keep up-to-date on my latest releases, then follow me on Facebook, Tumblr, and Twitter. Lastly, if you want to help support Improved Initiative, head over to The Literary Mercenary's Patreon page to become a patron today! It only takes $1 a month to get some sweet gaming swag, and to help me keep making great content for you discerning gamers out there.